Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody 27 (film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  Sandstein  05:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloody 27 (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Other than a couple of press releases for this ultra-low budget flick, no evidence of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC) So all in all, there's nothing here to show notability, especially when held up to the strict standards for unreleased films.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a nice article, with work by many editors.
 * Comments
 * I find the above characterization of the movie irrelevent, non NPOV and a derogatory of the many people who have worked on this article since 2008.
 * It does has Two sources + Allmovie links which satisfies requirements for notability. There are also items mentioned in the talk page.
 * Recomended Remedy — look at responsible tagging for a more productive methods for communicating your article quality concerns with the editors of the article. BO ; talk 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about? There is more than two references, there is no Allmovie link, and there are no sources on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I doubt that the Orlando Sentinel blog is reliable because it is posted by someone with a username which is otownrog. The Hollywood Reporter is not even any coverage. Hollywood.com's page is not available. I-Newswire is a press release. Yahoo! Movies is just the plot. I found no notability as well. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect. There's no substantial and reliable coverage for this film or any of the Dunn-related articles that the original editor has been adding and re-adding to Wikipedia. Considering that a few editors have been continuously trying to add Dunn, his company, and his films to Wikipedia, I think this should be protected until/if any of this gains notability. As far as the sources on the article go, here's my breakdown:
 * 1) Yahoo Movie link This only links to a database entry for the movie, which only shows that it exists. There are no reviews, no articles, or anything that would even begin to show notability. At best this could be considered a trivial source along the lines of IMDb.
 * 2) Orlando Sentinel blog Given the dubious screen name and that 99.9% of the article is a reprint of a press release, this couldn't possibly show notability. Even if it was a legitimate article that didn't just cut and paste a press release, one article does not show notability by itself.
 * 3) Hollywood Reporter This doesn't even go to a listing for anything, just a generic page where it tells you how to get your stuff listed on HR. Again, merely being listed in a database is not notability.
 * 4) Broken link There's nothing at this page, which I believe would have been another trivial link to a database entry.
 * 5) Press release These are considered primary sources, regardless of wherever they're posted.
 * Comment Also, there is good reason to believe that some of the "many editors" were all just the director editing the page using different sockpuppets. However, that is still under investigation. In any case, there must be thousands of ulta-low-budget flicks out there which are no more notable than this movie. I lived in Hollywood for a number of years, and I can tell you that you can't throw a rock without hitting a waiter/director or waiter/actor who has made or "starred" in one of these. And, hey, good for them, it's a great way to get experience, and once in a blue moon, you get one that becomes a cult classic. However, this is not one of those cases -- this is a film made by a nobody who is trying to use Wikipedia as his personal promotional board.JoelWhy (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG by lacking independent coverage in third party reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The closest thing to a reliable source is the Orlando Sentinel blog, but it simply exceprts a press release.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.